EVE Search - [Odyssey] Ship Resistance Bonuses

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[Odyssey] Ship Resistance Bonuses

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 575	Posted - 2013.04.12 16:03:00 - [1] - Quote Two step wrote: In a (probably futile) attempt to catch up with Fozzie on likes, if you don't like this, go unlike a past awesome Fozzie post And my actual response to the thread is that I think this will require a re-look at some of the already balanced ships that had this bonus, and possibly some adjustments. I do agree that resist bonuses are very good, but the fact that some of the ships listed are terrible means that the bonus isn't completely OP. Aye, suggested that myself when it became clear what was happening. Could be crudely done by adding a bit to the primary tank level roughly equivalent to what is lost (naked = sans buffer mods) .. won't be much on the smaller hulls affected but should be enough to make people (myself included) feel not quite so thoroughly shafted. Refined solution is to "simply" revise ships affected and look at everything again, replace lost tank with damage, speed, agility, sensors etc. Annoying part for me is that it was the infernal buffer monkeys out there that brought this about, that one measly percent will in a lot of frig/cruiser fights literally mean wins (usually pretty narrow) being turned into losses when active tanking.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 576	Posted - 2013.04.13 08:49:00 - [2] - Quote Naomi Knight wrote: Yes it seems they want the same thing , so repair bonused ships are viable for large scale PvP. I have no problem with that. Wrong way at looking at it, all it does is make choosing the resist hulls a not quite so obvious decision for quite so many situations, the rep ships are still hamstrung by being what they are but they should be able to find some previously unavailable niches to occupy in fleets. Naomi Knight wrote: But why is it so onesided?... It has to be, if a small scale ship is to be made truly viable in large scale fights it will completely dominate on the small. It is why the AAR had to be introduced in a significantly weakened state compared to lol-ASB's and the heating rig was pulled .. The correct approach is as CCP is doing it, to inch towards that most elusive golden middle where as many ships as possible are viable in as many scenarios as possible. The blanket reduction does however still necessitate a revisit of all the hulls affected, not all may need compensation tweaks but I'd guess most will.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 578	Posted - 2013.04.13 14:49:00 - [3] - Quote Iris Bravemount wrote: ...After the changes, large lasers will consume less cap overall, so it should actually become easier to run missions in an Abbadon... Eight MPII draw 40 odd cap per sec, native recharge is about a quarter of that and you think saving 4-5cap/s will have a significant impact (ie. change away from cap mods/rigs) on the ability for it to run it? Ships in my world that will be the hardest hit are the Punisher, Vengeance and Maller, because the EHP/Dps ratio in the sub-BC class is geared towards fast-n-furious fights where every inch counts. Punisher with weaker tank than current stands to lose the most as its performance is not stellar to begin with, massive cap instability in all but yawn buffer fits and no range/fight control to speak of. - Move utility to mid for fight control (indirectly helps tank), or - Increase damage bonus to 7.5%/level (manipulates the EHP/Dps ratio), or - the boring one Increase raw armour (manipulates the EHP/Dps ratio). Personally partial to the first option. Pits the resist directly against the rep bonus by mimicking the Incursus layout. Maller is a little better off than Punisher by having more starting EHP and grid to increase it, but it too suffers from fight control issues and is also pretty unstable .. doubly so as cruiser level fights very often include neuts. - Add 10m3 drones and tweak mobility and cap upwards a bit. - the boring one Increase raw armour (manipulates the EHP/Dps ratio). Solutions limited by Amarr cruiser dogma, 4 mids are restricted to selected hulls and it 'needs' the full high/low rack to compete. Vengeance is a specialized ship, the very first missile hull an Amarr pilot encounters. It is Khanid in origin which opens up for a lot of solutions (think toned down missile based Malice). - Move utility to mid for fight control (indirectly helps tank), or - Increase cap slightly and replace recharge bonus with 20% nos/neut power per level (helps defense or offense), or - Move utility to and tweak CPU/Grid low (directly helps tank, indirectly offense), or - the boring one Increase raw armour (manipulates the EHP/Dps ratio). Personally partial to the second option. Fits with everything without breaking (much) and I'd love me a gimp Malice!
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 578	Posted - 2013.04.13 15:01:00 - [4] - Quote Cabooze Skadoosh wrote: The 5% resist bonus is a very versatily bonus but is it a bad thing? ... When it equals or surpasses the specific/dedicated tank bonuses on both the small and the large scale, then yes that is pretty bad. Problem with a blanket reduction is that while it sorts the discrepancy (buffer induced), it hits the active tank resist ships (small scale mostly) doubly hard which is why you should accept it and join the 'Compensation NOW' lobby (see prev. post for examples).
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 579	Posted - 2013.04.13 15:37:00 - [5] - Quote Templar Dane wrote: Rep amount ships, 7.5% changed to 10% per level. Put the overloading rig in like was intended for the armor tanking update. Problem fixed, no need to nerf resist bonused ships. That is the quick and dirty solution they wanted to try but abandoned as rep bonused ships would be demi-gods on the small scale while still being relegated to the shadows on the large scale. Look at the math in the armour tanking thread, the Incursus would active tank solo as if it had a logistics frig permanently attached to it .. almost same for the Brutix/Myrmidon and with blue pill shields the Minmatar rep bonus + ASB just went through the roof. They did their due diligence, discarded the quick and easy way out and have now opted for the much more controversial and work intensive option. Hop on the sparsely populated 'Compensation NOW' wagon, lots of room left .. expect departure first thing next week
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 584	Posted - 2013.04.13 16:26:00 - [6] - Quote Cabooze Skadoosh wrote: So the problem is rep amount bonused armor boats being worse at active tanking than resist bonused armor boats? Not that resist bonus is too good in blob warfare? I'm confused. Shouldn't we classify the reason for the proposed nerf before we do anything.... No, you got it backwards (or sideways if such a thing exists ). Problem is: Ships with the rep bonus are geared towards the small scale while resist bonus is geared towards the large scale (buffer+logi) .. rep bonus gets no benefit on the large scale while resists can go toe-to-toe with it on the small scale, high resists essentially act as a double bonus. The 1% decrease leaves the majority of the benefit on the large scale while at the same time affording rep bonus the intended clear advantage on the small scale .. without making them into god-mobiles. We only need to get the status quo reaffirmed by revisiting the ships hardest hit by the decrease and giving them a little somethin' somethin'
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 586	Posted - 2013.04.13 20:53:00 - [7] - Quote Love dan Murcatto wrote: I see the reasoning behind lowering the resists, atleast in regular T1 hulls, but should this be done to faction, T2 and capital ships aswell? It seems only natural to me that the likes of rattlesnake, vulture or chimera should have better resists than a drake or rokh for example. If it turned out that the 5% resist bonus is still too big on these more expensive ships it always could be lowered down later. I don't see the need to change every +5% resists to +4%, you could leave some of them to +5%, now couldn't you?... Would muddy the waters needlessly to have bonuses of different values all over the place. If you sort the list Fozzie provided, you'll see that the vast majority of ships being affected are pirate/navy, T2 and collectors ships .. the first two have barely been been touched by tiericide (only just gotten to cruisers) and the latter are so brokenly OP and rarely see combat that they remain unperturbed. T2 will probably see a shake-up of similar magnitude to what T1 has seen as will the larger faction hulls, when the time comes keep an eye on them and if CCP neglects to account for the blanket nerf when presenting the revision, then you can scream bloody murder .. until then, focus on the existing ships (ie. tiericided T1) affected and let the rest lie until the shroud is lifted.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 586	Posted - 2013.04.13 21:10:00 - [8] - Quote Smoking Blunts wrote: so you balance lots of ships, for the most part well. and then you randomly decide to hit 44 ships with a nerf some(if not most) really do not need or warrant.... Go over the list again and count the ships affected - Shield: Merlin, Moa, Drake, Ferox. Armour: Punisher, Maller, Prophecy, Abaddon. That is a grand total of eight ships the rest are noobships, T2 ships, capitals and various faction hulls .. none of which have been addressed in the tiericide passes, ie. any compensation for the tank decrease can be worked into revisions with ease. Onus for us should be to make CCP understand that some of the already tiericided ships affected will be hit quite hard and need a once over to smooth them out.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 586	Posted - 2013.04.13 22:32:00 - [9] - Quote Super Chair wrote: The first resist module or rig you put on a resist bonused ship is stacking penalized... Just a correction for as you seem to confuse the way resists work with stacking. The 25% on hull leaves 75% for the rig to reduce, which it does 75*0.3=22.5 .. 22.5+25 = 47.5 .. it is done that way so that one can never become immune. That is not stacking, would be if the rig had less than 30% effect on resists which a second resist mod that affects EM will have. Carry on.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 595	Posted - 2013.04.15 11:03:00 - [10] - Quote Akturous wrote: Actually I don't think that's a stupid idea at all, it would stop alpha fleet bullshit. It would need to be a crippling low number to have the desired effect .. with external voice and an ever improving UI it will be a 'simple' matter for FC's to split a fleet into 15 man firecrews, each of which are capable of dropping a single target. Arbitrary solutions such as that will never be able to decrease blobbing or anything of that nature, for that you need to shake-up the mechanics to make the use of cookie cutter doctrines less efficient/desirable .. you quite simply need something that small fleets/gangs are better at than giant block-out-the-sun blobs are.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 596	Posted - 2013.04.15 14:03:00 - [11] - Quote Johan March wrote: I know I'm very late to this party, but my recommendation would be to extend repair amount bonuses to both local and remote repairs. It would open up a lot of different ships to be fleet doctrines. I don't have anything against this slight nerf and agree with it, but in addition to the reduction in resist bonuses to 4% CCP should open the booster bonused hulls to remote boosting. That will open a bunch of minmatar and gallente ships to fleet doctrines. Even though I'm in a big 0.0 bloc, I like small gang and often, even a 10 ship fleet will have a couple of T1 logi cruisers (thank you Fozzie). Remote reps, in my opinion, encourages cooperative play and cooperative play is really what makes Eve fun. Sounds good on paper, but how do you propose one goes about killing an all rep + logi (Incursus/Brutix/Myrm/Hype) fleet without bring the exact same? It would break both on the small as well as on the large scale .. as evil as a resist decrease is, it is the lesser of the evils available.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 624	Posted - 2013.04.24 09:12:00 - [12] - Quote XDMR wrote: Brother Welcome wrote: My tuppence 2. Nerf BS' to 4% as planned but increase their armour/shield HPs so that their EHP stays the same while the dynamic of their ablation/repping changes as desired. That will have the side effect of improving them for lower skill level players. It will keep them effective in smaller gangs. Obliquely, it may produce a tiny nerf to alpha. Why not the exact opposite? Leave the resi bonus but nerf base shield or armor hp. This would push them "more" towards active tanking. Neither one is applicable as long as buffer tanks and RR exists .. the issue is not that they are too good at active tanking but that the benefit they do have in that regard carries over and is multiplied when buffers/RR enter the picture. Buffers should be adjusted, period. Way too good at too low a cost .. doubly so now that CCP caved and reduced mass of plates + honeycombing. RR is powerful, very powerful .. why not shake that one up? Logistics provide the materials (nanites) but the recipient has to power the things. HP/Cap ratio should be high'ish, say 4x that of a local rep but it would at least require something from the client .. hell, one could completely demolish the apple cart and require wanna-be clients to have scrap in cargo to be used as raw materials by the nanites! * Change bonuses on logistics ships to fit a new paradigm. Cat has many lives, don't hold back experiments to find the optimal way of skinning it!
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 663	Posted - 2013.05.09 12:11:00 - [13] - Quote Deerin wrote: ...yadayada...Which is 1.066 times higher (which is exactly what XG is talking about)...yadayadayada... 6.6% more damage received is huge in some instances, most of the Punisher fights I have had (read: won) left me in flames with a quarter or less hull remaining .. Still think we need to have a brush-up pass on all ships affected to tweak them slightly to compensate for the loss of tank .. tweak does not have to be tank related though but would make the most sense and could be something as simple as reducing sig, increasing speed or the blunt tool approach of adding raw EHP. Thankfully, the resist ships were never that good to begin with (comparatively) so there is no bad habit to kick

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.